On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> > bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> > interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
>
> > What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> > partners page, etc.?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:51:52PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
> pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking ab
> > What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> > partners page, etc.?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:51:52PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
> pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking a
> What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> partners page, etc.?
What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking about?
> Perhaps you should read the social contract before your next post?
>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Also, for this context, section 1 basically says that we won't make
> > anything in our distribution depend on stuff in non-free. [Which means
> > that stuff in contrib, which depends on stuff in non-free, should never
> > be a part
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:08:37PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
>
> I was not saying that FTP would become obsolete, I was saying that CDs will
> become obsolete.
>
debian-manifesto
It is also an attempt to create a non-commercial distribution that will
be able to effective
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> As an example of what falls in the category covered by section 5,
> which is not commercial: if we have some software that has a "you can
> have the source, and you can give away the source or binaries for free,
> but you can't distribu
> What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> partners page, etc.?
What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking about?
> Perhaps you should read the social contract before your next post?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Being the champions of free software doesn't always mean we have to be
> extremists about it. :)
One of the things I always used to find good about Debian was that even
though a lot of people seem to view it as being about making poli
>>"Ean" == Ean R Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ean> True, but it is only a matter of time and a short one at that.
This is off charter, but I think you are being unduly
optimistic. My family back in the mother country is now in the
process of purchasing computers and getting n
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Also, for this context, section 1 basically says that we won't make
> > anything in our distribution depend on stuff in non-free. [Which means
> > that stuff in contrib, which depends on stuff in non-free, should never
> > be a part
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:08:37PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
>
> I was not saying that FTP would become obsolete, I was saying that CDs will
> become obsolete.
>
debian-manifesto
It is also an attempt to create a non-commercial distribution that will
be able to effectiv
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> As an example of what falls in the category covered by section 5,
> which is not commercial: if we have some software that has a "you can
> have the source, and you can give away the source or binaries for free,
> but you can't distrib
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 02:18:44PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract
> says that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution",
> period. Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP,
> those conce
* Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000928 12:25]:
> To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract says
> that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution", period.
> Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP, those concepts
> seem to
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Being the champions of free software doesn't always mean we have to be
> extremists about it. :)
One of the things I always used to find good about Debian was that even
though a lot of people seem to view it as being about making pol
>>"Ean" == Ean R Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ean> True, but it is only a matter of time and a short one at that.
This is off charter, but I think you are being unduly
optimistic. My family back in the mother country is now in the
process of purchasing computers and getting
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:41:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> > software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
>
> Not all
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 02:18:44PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract
> says that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution",
> period. Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP,
> those conc
* Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000928 12:25]:
> To return to the crux of the biscuit, article 1 of the social contract says
> that commercial software will not be part of the "distribution", period.
> Five then says that we will offer commercial software via FTP, those concepts
> seem t
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
Not all the world is the US.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Try
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> want.
And that's what the secreta
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:41:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> > software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
>
> Not all
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
Not all the world is the US.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tr
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> want.
And that's what the secret
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:44:07PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> He decided to do what he wanted rather than deciding on constitutionality.
> =/ I don't like the method. It's setting a bad precedent.
Nonsense. The secretary "Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation
of the constitution." Fr
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 01:12:42AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they
> should interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever
> the hell they want.
I'm not
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:44:07PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> He decided to do what he wanted rather than deciding on constitutionality.
> =/ I don't like the method. It's setting a bad precedent.
Nonsense. The secretary "Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation
of the constitution." F
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 01:12:42AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they
> should interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever
> the hell they want.
I'm no
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 01:12:42AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> want.
>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Raul D. Miller wrote:
> > I think it should, in fact. HOWEVER, there is no constitutional provision
> > AT THIS TIME for it. Fact is, gecko has NO AUTHORITY to single-handedly
> > alter the constitution in practice like this.
>
> Fact is?
>
> Fact is -
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 01:12:42AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> I would reasonably assume (obviously a mistake when dealing with
> bureacracies) that if the secretary needs to make a decision, they should
> interpret the constitution, not throw it out and do whatever the hell they
> want.
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
